Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-10-2012, 08:30 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,671,842 times
Reputation: 20028

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marissy View Post
Isn't there a difference between taxing individuals vs. taxing corporations? How would taxing an individual make a corporation increase the prices of its products?
dont forget that many small businesses file their taxes as individuals rather than as corporations. so that small business that is taking in that $200-250k per year is going to pay more in taxes, and that cuts into their already thin profit margins, and as such they will do what it takes to maintain the profit margins. and they have a few tools which they can use, things like;

raise prices
cut portion size
reduce employee hours
reduce employee levels
reduce quality

if it were just raising taxes on the CEOs of a corporation, then i wouldnt care, but increasing taxes will hit the small business owner as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2012, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
14,561 posts, read 22,980,515 times
Reputation: 10355
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronic65 View Post
Have you heard that old truism, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? Do you not think that if people in high finance and industry, etc. experience increased costs, they will just pass it on the consumers of there product as a price increase? Thus, it is the little guy, the alleged 99 percent person who will get hurt in the end. Now will one of you brilliant liberals tell me where I am making a mistake in my thinking?
Very simple. If you're wealthy, you're almost certainly in a position that puts more burden on our infrastructure (ports, municipal airports, interstates...etc) than your average middle class family. Thus, you should pay more to maintain that infrastructure.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
14,561 posts, read 22,980,515 times
Reputation: 10355
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
dont forget that many small businesses file their taxes as individuals rather than as corporations. so that small business that is taking in that $200-250k per year is going to pay more in taxes, and that cuts into their already thin profit margins, and as such they will do what it takes to maintain the profit margins. and they have a few tools which they can use, things like;

raise prices
cut portion size
reduce employee hours
reduce employee levels
reduce quality

if it were just raising taxes on the CEOs of a corporation, then i wouldnt care, but increasing taxes will hit the small business owner as well.
A) Define "many".

B) Any business that files as an individual needs to get smarter and do it right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Atlantis
3,016 posts, read 3,895,207 times
Reputation: 8866
The wealthy pay more in taxes because the state (government) requires them to pay more in taxes.


The wealthy directly agree by default to allow the state to determine how much they pay in taxes due to the fact that the "money" they have is printed and put into circulation by the state. Last time I checked - the wealthy do not print their own currency, nor do they only conduct their banking through a private banking system (that would involve too much risk). And the wealthy do not complain that the FDIC insures each bank account up to $250,000 so a person with 1 million dollars could safely have the money that was initially printed and put into circulation by the state that they earned into four different accounts and know that it will always be insured by the state. The same state that makes them pay more taxes.

And as far as the money that the wealthy earn. If the state did not exist and maintain order amongst the 70% at the bottom of the pyramid in the US, then the wealthy would not have their money very long once there were riots in the streets and a redistribution of wealth involving alot of blood. At that point, the wealthy would be begging an entity with a legal monopoly on the use of force (the state) to step in and restore order, as well as start making them pay more in taxes again. The wealthy rarely complain that the state enables them in many ways to maintain their economic position through a tax code that allows them (although paying more in taxes) to make sure that their group is not ever threatened by too many people beneath them ever making enough money to join them and they enjoy many tax advantages and deductions that the rest of society does not even understand and/or know about.

While paying more in taxes to the state, they are often oblivious to the fact that if the state did not exist, the costs associated with private security to protect them and their wealth would consume a far larger percentage of their total wealth than the taxes that they do pay. Fortunately the state spreads its taxing power out across the entire population and makes everyone pay for things like security (police, FBI, etc) together. So a person that is worth $20 million, if or when a family member were to get kidnapped and held for ransom for as much as $1 million - the wealthy can just dial law enforcement and have them take over rather than have to spend that much money to ensure the safe return of a loved one. The wealthy also have a long history of making sure that their offspring do not ever have to go to war, while those with less wealth (and a lower tax burdern) have to send their children off to fight and often die, to make the country safe from foreign invaders. The wealthy objectively have far more to lose in the event of a military invasion simply due to the fact that they have more wealth to lose. However, a poor family that loses two sons in a war, that pays very little in taxes - ultimately pays a far greater price for the same freedom that they are fortunate enough to have as a wealthy person. Drafting of poor young men in times of war is a direct form of taxation - and it is a taxation of lives rather than adjusted gross income.

A tax free state would essentially be a state with little or no government. I don't really see wealthy people flocking to areas of the world where there are not any taxes just to avoid having to pay more in taxes than someone that makes less money. In a state of anarchy where the wealthy would not have to pay taxes to the state - they would most certainly have to pay "taxes" to whatever roaming band of thugs arrived at their homes, armed and demanding what they have. The top 1% in the US although they pay more in taxes - they pay a lower tax rate as a percentage of their total income and the tax laws and social stratification in the US has enabled them also to enjoy a certain level of economic entrenchment that for the last few decades is also a guarantee that they will always maintain their economic position at or about the level they are use to experiencing it at. Once again, due primarily to the existence of government and if the only thing they have to complain about is the amount of taxes that they pay, they need to grow up and deal with it.

And the wealthy are primarily all in favor of the "free market", which is understandable. FYI folks - a government that through direct competition with other governments just happens to have a monopoly on a geographical region that certain people live in including the wealthy and the consumers (citizens) that chose to live in that area subjec themselves to the rules of that government when they chose that. They have other options, especially if they are wealthy. The government charges for it's products and services and if the current government in the US was not present, then another one would step in and takes it place and charge as much as it reasonably could to it's customers aka citizens in order to make a "profit". A profit, just like the wealthy did when they made their money (aside from the ones that inherited it) and so there are terms and conditions associated with the arrangement and taxes are one of them. Expecially when the government maintains enough order to ensure that another entity that is probably not as predictable as the current government does not take its place and extract the same amount or even more money from the same wealthy people that presently complain about their taxes. Why do you think racketeering is illegal as well as other mafia activities. The legal government does not like competition.

Last edited by Skydive Outlaw; 11-10-2012 at 09:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 08:37 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,498,517 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post

I'd love to see a bill proposed that would reward employers who invest in their employees. There has to be some type of incentive for corporations to give their profits to employees rather than stockholders.
Good news. What you seek exists. It's called employee benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 08:37 AM
 
2,908 posts, read 3,858,987 times
Reputation: 3166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
Your argument about "Liberal America" is total fallacy during the Eisenhower Administration at the height of what can call "Conservative America" the maximum marginal tax rate was at 90%.

The reality is tax rate for the highest income Americans are at the low end at a historical basis while the wealthiest Americans have seen their incomes increase the fastest over the past 30 years.
Yes, already stated that the highest marginal tax rate was for income above $400,000. In today's dollars that is income over $3,500,000. If our gov't were to increase tax on income above that figure, it would amount to a hill of beans. Nope, they are after the upper middle class as well.......they just don't want you to know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,193,087 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Very simple. If you're wealthy, you're almost certainly in a position that puts more burden on our infrastructure (ports, municipal airports, interstates...etc) than your average middle class family. Thus, you should pay more to maintain that infrastructure.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
So how does that middle manager making $250K a year put more burden on the infrastructure ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 08:41 AM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,395 posts, read 16,265,163 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chowhound View Post
Ok... do some slight calcualtion then........
As soon as you introduce ANY sort of brackets or a "floor" where you don't pay any taxes below a certain income, it is no longer an actual flat tax. It's progressive tax, which we have now. THAT is why a true flat tax doesn't work.

Now, if you're advocating for a much more simplified tax system, with FAR fewer deductions/credits/loopholes, I'm all for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 08:42 AM
 
2,908 posts, read 3,858,987 times
Reputation: 3166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Very simple. If you're wealthy, you're almost certainly in a position that puts more burden on our infrastructure (ports, municipal airports, interstates...etc) than your average middle class family. Thus, you should pay more to maintain that infrastructure.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
That is fantastic! So, nothing needs to change since the "wealthy" already pay the highest effective rate and the vast majority of taxes collected. Win/Win...Komrade
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,193,087 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by theS5 View Post
That is fantastic! So, nothing needs to change since the "wealthy" already pay the highest effective rate and the vast majority of taxes collected. Win/Win...Komrade
But the wealthy keep too much compared to the poor. That is the part that's not fair.
They should not get to keep that much money after paying taxes.

It's not how much they pay; it's how much they get to keep and they get to keep TOO MUCH.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top